[rustbucket]

I think what Madison says is compatible with the idea of the Preamble that "We the People" hold ultimate sovreignty. As Madison states later in #39, the Constitution sets up a general government that is not wholly national or federal. This composite concept fits in with the divided sovereignty idea. The prevalent error today makes the general government into a fully sovereign national government, but the other extreme of fully sovereign state government is going too far in the other direction.

Thanks for your reply. Sorry to be so long in responding but I was out of town without a computer on a trip to see family. I've been slowly going back through my pings while celebrating Christmas back at home.

I see that we differ in our interpretation of where sovereignty ultimately resides. But differences of opinion are good. That's how we both learn and flesh out and defend our thoughts.

If the lumpen people of the whole are the ultimate sovereigns, how is it that Hamilton and Jay and the New York Ratification Convention said they could reassume their own governance and that that is consistent with the Constitution? The people of a state couldn't reassume their own governance unless the people of the state were thought to be the ultimate sovereigns.

In ancient Greek city-states, at least in a democracy like Athens, sovereignty was thought to ultimately reside in the male adults of the city-states who were not slaves. In the early United States during the writing of the Constitution, sovereignty was thought to ultimately reside to the separate peoples of the various states, not the lumpen people of the whole country. That is why ratification was submitted to the people in states, not to the populace of the whole country.

Here are some comments about the lumpen people by Justice Thomas (originally posted by 4CJ long ago).

"In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."
Justice Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995).

These days politicians like Hillary push for the end of the electoral college. This would, in effect, shift power from the peoples of the individual states to the lumpen mass of the people of the whole country. This would give corrupt political machines in large cities increased power in elections. No thanks. Our Founders were wise in not going that route.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I'm even later in responding. Christmas family visits and a virus have kept me off line for a while. I agree totally about the virtue of the Electoral College, And it grates on my mind when I hear politicians and media talk about our "democracy" oblivious to the fact that we have a republic of checks and balances and divided sovreignty and powers. As far as Jay, Hamilton and NY is concerned, my opinion is that the leaving the Union is by the mutual consent path but that is another of the difference of opinions.

Thanks for your thought provoking responses. They've helped lead me to purchase a copy of the Federalist so as to better understand the issues we speak of.